Moral Absolutism Vs Moral Relativism

Morality is woven into to every stitch of the fabric of our society. From our criminal justice system to our foreign policy, from throwing a surprise party to honking at a car that cuts you off, virtually every one of our voluntary actions must first undergo some sort of moral processing that tells us whether it is okay or not to do. As expected, this moral processing varies from culture to culture and is the basis of many of the culturally specific traditions and laws that we see today. However, this moral disagreement across cultures is so distinct that many intellectuals, especially in this current generation, have elected to believe that there are no absolute laws of right and wrong but rather that human morality is simply a projection
The twenty first century is a time for progressive ideals and a universal tolerance of of other cultures, religions and identities. It is this increased desire for tolerance that has swayed many away from the idea of moral absolutism, which asserts that there are moral facts that are independent of human opinion, and towards the idea of moral relativism which states that there are no set facts about which actions are right and wrong, but rather that they are only relative to a person or group. In this relativist view, morality is a creation of our own emotions and desires and thus there can never be any sort of moral convergence or progress. Additionally, this view dictates that, genocide, slavery, and torture for pleasure can all be considered “morally correct” if they follow the moral guidelines of your culture. Before I object to the common arguements for relativism I first want to state that the best argument against moral relativism will always be common sense. Torturing a baby simply because you are bored, will never and should never be okay, regardless of what those around you say. Eating another person because you are too lazy to go get food is never morally permissable. While not all actions are determined moral or immoral by absolute morality, there are some that are simply too heinous to be up for
The foremost principle of Kantian ethics is that whenever we act, we must respect the inherent dignity of a human being, or, in other words, we can not violate anyone’s free will when they are acting rationally. Since humans have the ability to resist our desires and act using reason and logic, we are rational beings, and this in turn gives us inherent dignity. Thus, in the previous case of four people starving on an island, it would be immoral for any of them to eat one another without their consent because they would be violating each others’ inherent